PALL vs. GLL
PALL (Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF) and GLL (ProShares UltraShort Gold) are both exchange-traded funds - PALL is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt), while GLL is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Gold (-200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PALL returned 7.79%/yr vs -21.26%/yr for GLL. At a correlation of -0.40, they often move in opposite directions. PALL charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for GLL.
Performance
PALL vs. GLL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PALL achieves a -23.17% return, which is significantly lower than GLL's -1.30% return. Over the past 10 years, PALL has outperformed GLL with an annualized return of 7.79%, while GLL has yielded a comparatively lower -21.26% annualized return.
PALL
- 1D
- -2.40%
- 1M
- -8.89%
- YTD
- -23.17%
- 6M
- -33.98%
- 1Y
- 13.76%
- 3Y*
- -1.99%
- 5Y*
- -14.70%
- 10Y*
- 7.79%
GLL
- 1D
- 3.82%
- 1M
- 18.89%
- YTD
- -1.30%
- 6M
- 7.14%
- 1Y
- -39.64%
- 3Y*
- -39.33%
- 5Y*
- -28.52%
- 10Y*
- -21.26%
PALL vs. GLL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF | -23.17% | 74.07% | -17.38% | -38.77% | -6.28% | -23.26% | 25.27% | 53.94% | 17.23% | 55.73% |
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold | -1.30% | -62.81% | -33.33% | -14.91% | -2.12% | 1.66% | -41.47% | -26.95% | 5.39% | -23.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between PALL and GLL is -0.60, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.60 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.47 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.45 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.37 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 14, 2010 | -0.40 |
Over the past year, the inverse relationship between PALL and GLL has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.40 to -0.60, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
PALL vs. GLL — Risk / Return Rank
PALL
GLL
PALL vs. GLL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) and ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| PALL | GLL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 0.89 | +0.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.34 | -0.61 | +0.95 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.75 | -0.92 | +1.67 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PALL vs. GLL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PALL drawdown since its inception was -73.63%, smaller than the maximum GLL drawdown of -99.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PALL and GLL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PALL | GLL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -73.63% | -99.24% | +25.61% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -40.70% | -65.10% | +24.40% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -40.70% | -87.95% | +47.25% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -73.63% | -89.76% | +16.13% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -73.63% | -95.76% | +22.13% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -62.14% | -98.77% | +36.63% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.91% | -85.15% | +58.24% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 18.39% | 43.09% | -24.70% |
Volatility
PALL vs. GLL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) is 12.76%, while ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) has a volatility of 16.15%. This indicates that PALL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PALL | GLL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.76% | 16.15% | -3.39% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 42.39% | 46.91% | -4.52% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 51.04% | 54.37% | -3.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 42.41% | 36.40% | +6.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 38.03% | 32.31% | +5.72% |
PALL vs. GLL - Expense Ratio Comparison
PALL has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than GLL's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
PALL vs. GLL - Dividend Comparison
Neither PALL nor GLL has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
PALL and GLL have a correlation of -0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLL has higher volatility (16.15%) compared to PALL (12.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PALL dropped -73.63% vs GLL's -99.24%.
On 10-year performance, PALL leads with 7.79% vs -21.26% for GLL. On fees, PALL is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, PALL has been the lower-risk option at 12.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, PALL has performed better with a 7.79% return vs -21.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PALL is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for GLL.
PALL and GLL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
PALL is categorized as Precious Metals, while GLL is Leveraged Commodities. PALL tracks Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt), while GLL tracks Bloomberg Gold (-200%). They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PALL and 0.95% for GLL.
PALL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.27 vs -0.73), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for PALL and GLL
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer